Grappling with SEND in Education

Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) provision sits at the heart of contemporary educational policy in England. The SEND Code of Practice emphasises inclusion, early identification, personalised support, and the removal of barriers that prevent pupils from accessing education (Department for Education [DfE] & Department of Health [DoH], 2015). However, as the number of pupils identified as requiring SEND support continues to rise, schools face increasing pressure to implement interventions that promise improved outcomes.

Against this backdrop, Mccrea and Barker’s (2026) report, 10 Common SEN (Mis)Interventions, offers a timely and provocative challenge to many long-established practices. Drawing upon systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomised controlled trials, the report questions the effectiveness of ten widely used interventions in mainstream schools, including fidget spinners, coloured overlays, Zones of Regulation, universal mindfulness programmes, working memory training, weighted products, sensory circuits, learning styles, Brain Gym, and ear defenders.

Importantly, the report is not an argument against supporting pupils with SEND. Rather, it argues that support should be rooted in evidence rather than intuition, tradition, commercial marketing, or anecdotal experience (Mccrea & Barker, 2026). This position aligns strongly with the Education Endowment Foundation’s (EEF, 2020) guidance on SEND, which identifies high-quality teaching as the most effective means of improving outcomes for pupils with additional needs.

This article critically evaluates the report, examines the evidence underpinning each intervention, critiques the methodological limitations of the research base, and explores implications for SENCOs, teachers, parents, EHCP development, annual reviews, Multi-Academy Trusts (MATs), Ofsted, and government policy.

Why Weakly-Evidenced Interventions Persist

One of the most significant contributions of Mccrea and Barker’s (2026) report is its exploration of why interventions with limited evidence continue to dominate SEND provision.

Educational professionals naturally want to help pupils who are struggling. Visible interventions often provide reassurance that action is being taken. Slavin (2020) argues that education has historically been vulnerable to “innovation before evidence,” whereby appealing ideas are adopted before rigorous evaluation occurs. Similarly, Hattie (2023) notes that educational myths frequently persist because they offer simple explanations for complex learning difficulties.

SEND provision is particularly vulnerable to this phenomenon because:

• Outcomes are often difficult to measure.
• Progress may be gradual and non-linear.
• Parents understandably seek immediate solutions.
• Teachers may receive limited specialist SEND training.
• Commercial providers aggressively market interventions.

The result is what Mccrea and Barker (2026) identify as an “opportunity cost” problem. Every hour spent implementing ineffective provision is an hour not spent strengthening evidence-informed teaching practices.

Moving Beyond Labels: The Importance of Assessed Need

Perhaps the most important argument presented by Mccrea and Barker (2026) is that support should be driven by assessed barriers rather than diagnostic labels.

Research consistently supports this position. Dockrell et al. (2019) found that educational needs are stronger predictors of required support than diagnostic categories alone. Likewise, Van Herwegen et al. (2024) argue that effective SEND provision begins with identifying specific barriers to learning.

For example, two pupils with autism may have vastly different profiles:

• One may struggle with sensory overload.
• One may struggle with language processing.
• One may struggle with executive functioning.
• One may struggle with anxiety around transitions.

The autism diagnosis alone does not determine the most effective intervention.

This principle underpins the SEND Code of Practice (DfE & DoH, 2015), which emphasises individual assessment and personalised support.

Intervention 1: Fidget Spinners

Fidget spinners became popular based on the assumption that controlled sensory stimulation improves concentration for pupils with ADHD and attention difficulties.

However, Graziano, Garcia and Landis (2020) found that fidget spinners reduced attention to instruction among young children with ADHD. Similarly, Driesen et al. (2023) reported negative effects on mathematics and listening performance across a sample of 233 pupils regardless of ADHD traits.

Methodological Considerations

Although the findings are relatively consistent, limitations remain.

Firstly, studies often examine fidget spinners specifically rather than broader movement-based interventions. Secondly, most research measures short-term academic outcomes rather than longer-term self-regulation skills. Thirdly, many studies rely heavily on observational data.

Nevertheless, current evidence does not support routine classroom use.

Practical Implications

Rather than asking whether pupils need fidget spinners, schools should ask:

• Is attention the primary barrier?
• Is the pupil under-stimulated?
• Is task difficulty inappropriate?
• Are movement breaks required?

The focus should remain on the barrier rather than the tool.

Intervention 2: Coloured Overlays and Tinted Lenses

Coloured overlays remain one of the most common interventions associated with dyslexia.

However, systematic reviews by Albon et al. (2008) and Suttle, Lawrenson and Conway (2018) found insufficient evidence to support improvements in reading accuracy or fluency. Furthermore, Galuschka et al. (2014) found that benefits largely disappeared when placebo controls were introduced.

Methodological Considerations

The overlay literature is notable because it includes rigorous placebo-controlled designs, which are relatively uncommon in educational research.

However, subjective improvements in visual comfort may still occur for some individuals. Importantly, visual comfort should not be confused with literacy improvement.

Practical Implications

Schools should prioritise:

• Structured phonics.
• Reading fluency instruction.
• Vocabulary development.
• Reading comprehension strategies.

These approaches possess substantially stronger evidence bases (Galuschka et al., 2014).

Intervention 3: Zones of Regulation

Zones of Regulation has become a widely adopted emotional regulation curriculum across schools.

However, Mason, Leaf and Gerhardt (2024) concluded that it does not currently meet accepted standards for evidence-based practice. Similarly, Ochocki et al. (2020) and Conklin and Jairam (2021) found no statistically significant improvements in behavioural outcomes.

Methodological Considerations

Emotional regulation is difficult to measure. Outcomes frequently rely upon teacher ratings or self-report data, both of which may introduce bias.

Furthermore, schools often modify the programme, creating implementation variability that complicates evaluation.

Despite these challenges, robust evidence supporting the programme remains limited.

Practical Implications

Instead of relying on commercial emotional regulation programmes, schools should prioritise:

• Trusted adult relationships.
• Co-regulation.
• Explicit teaching of emotional vocabulary.
• Consistent behavioural expectations.

These approaches are more strongly supported by social-emotional learning research (Durlak et al., 2011).

Intervention 4: Universal Mindfulness Programmes

Universal mindfulness programmes have been widely promoted as a solution to growing concerns around student wellbeing.

The MYRIAD trial conducted by Kuyken et al. (2022) evaluated over 8,000 adolescents and found no significant improvements in wellbeing, depression risk, or mental health outcomes. Montero-Marin et al. (2022) further identified potential negative effects among pupils already experiencing mental health difficulties.

These findings were supported by Fulambarkar et al. (2023) and the DfE-funded AWARE trial (Deighton et al., 2025).

Methodological Considerations

The MYRIAD study represents one of the strongest research designs available within educational psychology.

However, it evaluated universal delivery rather than targeted therapeutic interventions.

Therefore, conclusions should not be generalised to clinically delivered mindfulness programmes.

Practical Implications

Schools may achieve greater wellbeing gains through:

• Strengthening belonging.
• Improving attendance.
• Enhancing peer relationships.
• Increasing access to trusted adults.
• Promoting physical activity.

Intervention 5: Working Memory Training

Working memory training programmes such as Cogmed are based on the assumption that cognitive capacity can be strengthened through repeated practice.

However, Melby-Lervåg, Redick and Hulme (2016) found no convincing evidence of transfer to reading, mathematics, intelligence, or academic achievement. Similar findings were reported by Cortese et al. (2015) and Westwood et al. (2023).

Methodological Considerations

The primary challenge is the distinction between near transfer and far transfer.

Participants improve on trained tasks but fail to demonstrate meaningful improvements in broader learning outcomes.

This represents one of the strongest negative findings within educational intervention research.

Practical Implications

Teachers should focus on reducing working memory demands through:

• Chunking information.
• Visual supports.
• Scaffolding.
• Explicit modelling.
• Retrieval practice.

Intervention 6: Weighted Vests and Weighted Blankets

Weighted products are frequently used with autistic pupils and those experiencing anxiety.

Taylor et al. (2017) concluded that weighted vests do not meet evidence-based practice standards for autism interventions. Similar conclusions were reached by Case-Smith, Weaver and Fristad (2015).

Methodological Considerations

Many studies involve small sample sizes and variable intervention protocols.

However, findings consistently fail to demonstrate meaningful educational benefits.

Practical Implications

Weighted items may function as comfort tools for some individuals but should not be viewed as interventions that improve learning outcomes.

Intervention 7: Sensory Diets and Sensory Circuits

Sensory circuits are widely implemented despite relatively weak evidence.

Case-Smith et al. (2015) and Williams et al. (2024) found mixed findings and considerable methodological limitations across the literature.

Methodological Considerations

Research suffers from:

• Small samples.
• Diverse intervention protocols.
• Poorly defined outcome measures.

Consequently, conclusions remain tentative.

Practical Implications

Sensory approaches should be trialled cautiously and evaluated rigorously.

Schools should ask:

“What educational barrier is being addressed?”

rather than

“What sensory activity should we provide?”

Intervention 8: Learning Styles

Learning styles remain one of education’s most persistent myths.

Pashler et al. (2008), Melzner and Kappes (2024), and Sun et al. (2023) all failed to find evidence supporting the matching hypothesis.

Methodological Considerations

Unlike many interventions, learning styles have been subjected to repeated experimental testing.

The consistency of null findings across decades provides unusually strong evidence against the theory.

Practical Implications

Schools should replace learning styles language with evidence-informed concepts such as:

• Multiple representations.
• Dual coding.
• Universal Design for Learning.
• Explicit instruction.

Intervention 9: Brain Gym

Brain Gym claims that specific movements improve communication between brain hemispheres and enhance learning.

Hyatt (2007) and Spaulding, Mostert and Beam (2010) concluded that the underlying neuroscience lacks credibility.

Methodological Considerations

The problem is largely theoretical.

Although physical activity may improve alertness and wellbeing, Brain Gym’s neurological explanations are unsupported.

Practical Implications

Schools should promote movement because movement is beneficial—not because Brain Gym theory is valid.

Intervention 10: Ear Defenders

Ear defenders differ fundamentally from the other interventions because they function as accommodations rather than treatments.

Case-Smith et al. (2015) identified strong evidence that auditory sensitivities are more common among autistic individuals.

Methodological Considerations

Direct evidence linking ear defenders to improved academic outcomes remains limited.

However, their rationale as a reasonable adjustment is stronger than many other interventions reviewed.

Practical Implications

Ear defenders should:

• Address specific barriers.
• Be reviewed regularly.
• Support participation.
• Avoid promoting long-term withdrawal.

Implications for EHCPs and Annual Reviews

The report has profound implications for EHCP drafting and review processes.

Many EHCPs specify activities rather than outcomes.

For example:

Poor Practice:

• Access to sensory circuits.
• Weekly Zones of Regulation sessions.
• Use of fidget tools.

Evidence-Informed Practice:

• Increase independent task completion.
• Reduce classroom withdrawal.
• Improve reading fluency.
• Improve attendance and participation.

Annual reviews should evaluate:

• Educational progress.
• Independence.
• Participation.
• Social inclusion.
• Wellbeing.
• Cost-effectiveness.

Provision should only continue where measurable impact is demonstrated.

Recommendations for SENCOs

SENCOs should:

1. Audit all SEND interventions.
2. Evaluate evidence quality.
3. Strengthen universal provision.
4. Improve staff training.
5. Focus on assessed barriers.
6. Implement robust outcome measures.
7. Review interventions systematically.

The SEND Code of Practice (DfE & DoH, 2015) and EEF guidance (2020) strongly support this approach.

Recommendations for Teachers

Teachers should prioritise:

• Explicit instruction (Rosenshine, 2012).
• Scaffolding.
• Cognitive load reduction (Sweller, 2011).
• Vocabulary development.
• Retrieval practice.
• Consistent routines.

High-quality teaching remains the most effective intervention available for most pupils with SEND (EEF, 2020).

Recommendations for Parents

Parents should:

• Request evidence supporting interventions.
• Focus on measurable outcomes.
• Participate actively in reviews.
• Support skill generalisation at home.

Parental advocacy remains essential in ensuring provision remains evidence-informed.

Policy Recommendations

Government

The Department for Education should:

• Establish a national SEND evidence repository.
• Fund large-scale intervention trials.
• Improve SEND research funding.
• Require stronger evidence standards for commercial products.

Multi-Academy Trusts

MATs should:

• Audit intervention use.
• Share evidence-informed practice.
• Develop common evaluation frameworks.
• Strengthen professional development.

Ofsted

Inspection frameworks should increasingly focus on:

• Impact.
• Evidence quality.
• Evaluation processes.

Inspectors should ask: “What difference is this provision making?” rather than “What interventions are in place?”

Conclusion

Mccrea and Barker’s (2026) report provides an important challenge to contemporary SEND practice. While some conclusions may be uncomfortable, the central message is difficult to dispute: support should be driven by evidence, assessed need, and measurable outcomes rather than tradition, intuition, or commercial influence.

The future of effective SEND provision lies not in increasingly complex intervention menus but in high-quality teaching, rigorous assessment, precise adaptation, and systematic evaluation. For SENCOs, teachers, parents, school leaders, MATs, Ofsted, and policymakers, the challenge is not to do more. The challenge is to ensure that what is being done genuinely improves outcomes for the pupils who need support the most.

References

• Department for Education & Department of Health (2015). SEND Code of Practice: 0–25 Years.
• Dockrell, J., et al. (2019). What drives educational support for children with developmental language disorder or autism spectrum disorder: needs, or diagnostic category?
• Education Endowment Foundation (2020). Special Educational Needs in Mainstream Schools Guidance Report.
• Galuschka, K., et al. (2014). Effectiveness of treatment approaches for children and adolescents with reading disabilities: A meta-analysis of RCTs.
• Mccrea, P., & Barker, J. (2026). 10 Common SEN (Mis)Interventions: An Evidence Summary of Ten Popular Approaches in Mainstream Classrooms. Steplab & Ormiston Academies Trust.
• Slavin, R. E. (2020). How Evidence-Based Reform Will Transform Research and Practice in Education.
• Van Herwegen, J., et al. (2024). Raising Educational Outcomes for Students with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities.